Talk:List of British monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth realms, an attempt to better organise and expand information in articles related to the Commonwealth realms. For more information, visit the project page or check the talk page for on going discussions.

Contents

[edit] A new article

I've created a new article, It needs citation and expansion. This article deals with the British monarchs (post-1707 unification), a list which begins with Queen Anne. GoodDay 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be merged, I agree. (said an anonymous correspondent)

This version of the article only deals with a very small subset of the British monarchs: those who were monarchs of the UK. However the initial intent of this article was to deal with all British monarchs from Roman times onwards and an article to do that already exists. In fact this article used to redirect to it. This article should be merged into that one since it duplicates content. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I have proposed that List of Canadian monarchs be merged into this article (i.e., changed into a simple redirect), because it covers precisely the same ground, yet has less detail. TharkunColl (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose There's is such a thing as Canadian monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Keeping in mind aswell, monarchs also include the native chiefs of Canada's history. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's a good idea, GoodDay. I wish we had more information on First Nations monarchs. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*Accept Who just happen to be identical to the British ones. The article is completely superfluous. TharkunColl (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Illustrates the concept of personal union very well. Mayalld (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is parallel, but the jurisdiction, context, and history is different; I don't see how that could be covered in this list. --G2bambino (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Canadian monarchy/History of monarchy in Canada - This short page is complety unnecessary as all they information is or can be easily at Canadian monarchy and History of monarchy in Canada. UpDown (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Canadian monarchy/History of monarchy in Canada - Since there's no 'First Nations' monarchs on this list & the fact that Victoria to George VI didn't use the title King/Queen of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment The title does not create the position. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As it's only 5 monarchs shorter than this page, perhaps this one should be merged into British monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A list is useful. What is not useful is having two lists, the contents of which overlap precisely. The Canadian list is superfluous, as it contains no info not found here. TharkunColl (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Should we also have List of Australian monarchs, New Zealand monarchs, Jamaican monarchs? In addition, only one person on the list has officially been King/Queen of Canada, the rest have not held the title.--UpDown (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You're all mixed up, UpDown. 1) The title doesn't create the position; there's been a distinct King/Queen of Canada since 1931, though none has been specifically titled as such until 1953. 2) The title doesn't matter, obviously; there's been no "King/Queen of Britain," and certainy none on this list have been. 3) The Canadian list clearly says they're monarchs of Canada, not separately King/Queen of Canada. Just to be clear. --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The title has only been in existant since 1953, so this list should only be since then. This list should be factual and it currently is not. The Britain thing is an invalid argument Britain stand for "United Kingdom", that's fairly apparent. But this discussion is largely irrelevant, a merge to Canadian monarchy is what is needed. --UpDown (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The title of the page isn't "List of monarchs bearing the title King or Queen of Canada," though, it's "List of Canadian monarchs."--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, we should only run the list from 1982, if we're being strictly accurate. A "list" with one person on it is no list at all. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget the 'First Nations monarchs', they don't belong at British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
And they're not on the Canadian list either. And nor should they be - they were not "monarchs of Canada", but of their own independent states that were later extinguished. TharkunColl (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You've a point there Tharky, since the chiefs aren't on this list. Also, UpDown has a point concerning the title King/Queen of Canada - One could argue, Elizabeth II has been the only Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't flip-flop so easily, GoodDay. UpDown's point re. the title of "King/Queen of Canada" is really irrelevant to this discussion, as I outlined in response to him/her. --G2bambino (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, which makes List of Canadian monarchs a pointless and misleading page. I think a merge to Canadian monarchy or History of monarchy in Canada is necessary. --UpDown (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very reasonable solution. And for those who are interested in the line of succession from earlier times, we could simply have an ordinary link to List of British monarchs. TharkunColl (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my opinon-vote. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, we turn List of Canadian monarchs into a redirect to either Canadian monarchy, or History of monarchy in Canada? Which of those two is best? TharkunColl (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we get a consensus - I'd redirect it to 'Canadian monarchy', since Elizabeth II is alive. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The monarchs of those places are nothing to do with Canada. We weren't even allowed to put English and British monarchs on the same list. TharkunColl (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose But make clear on the Canada list that Lizzy was the first Queen of Canada perhaps splitting the table ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do you mean first to be titled "Queen of Canada"? The position existed for decades before the title was created. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Elizabeth II is the first King or Queen of Canada, then no others should appear on that page. Please see the lengthy discussions at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs as to whether two different pages were needed. TharkunColl (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently this 'Merge' proposal is deadlocked at 3 to 3, is there a time-limit on it (the proposal)? It appears List of Canadian monarchs is here to stay. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my math. That's 5 to 3 in favour of Keeping the Canadian list. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So it would appear. But I think a clear consensus favours reducing it to just Elizabeth II. TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that statement is demonstrably false. If you're going to push this, I suggest you get an outside arbitrator to decide on the results of this poll. --G2bambino (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
All comments above relating to the issue, except yours, have expressed this opinion. This is a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Three out of eight is not "all comments." --G2bambino (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I said, "All comments above relating to the issue." TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What you mean then, is "all comments relating to the issue that are favourable to the outcome I want." Firstly, reducing the list was never an issue. Secondly, three people said they desire it, their reasoning was disputed by two others, thus no decision was reached, let alone a consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus to reduce the Canadian list, down to Elizabeth II. Besides, the 'Merge' request was not about the Canadian list content. It was about 'merging' two articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll have to propose it on the article's own talk page. I'll raise no objection if someone wants to remove the merge templates - no consensus on the merger has been reached, and therefore no change can be made. TharkunColl (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, raise 'list content' at List of Canadian monarchs and remove -Merge tag- as that article is staying put. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Shall I remove the merge tag from this article? GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prof. David Starkey on the continuity of the English-British state:

The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales. Prof. David Starkey, Monarchy.

Starkey is considered an english nationalist extremist by many, and has had a motion tabled condeming him in the Scottish Parliament. His programs are aimed at an english populist audience, and are not academic works. I'd hardly call that a good source, any more than the SNP manifesto. http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2004/10/#8090 194.140.65.241 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have therefore re-included the post 1707 monarchs in List of English monarchs and redirected this page there. TharkunColl (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad practice to merge without discussion, and totally ignoring history. Michael Sanders 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This article must begin at 1707, unless it can be proven that the the UK is actually the Kingdom of England. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely what Starkey's quote demonstrates, namely that it's the same institution. And he amply demonstrates this in his book and TV series, beginning in Anglo-Saxon times and going right up to the present, with the final episode tonight on the Windsors. TharkunColl (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay: James I/VI and his immediate successors may have described themselves as 'Kings of Britain', but the two Kingdoms were legally still separate and in existence; 'King of Britain' was at that time just a style, and only made more genuine than that of 'King of France' claimed contemporarily by the fact that at least James did rule Great Britain, if not as one body. Starting at 1707, ending the English and Scottish articles there, and firmly stating that it is the 'Kingdoms' of England and Scotland, rather than the 'countries', which ceased to exist with the Act of Union, keeps things firmly apolitical, and avoids Original Research or agenda. Michael Sanders 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a bit difficult not to notice what was going on here. I've protected this page for 24 hours so that no further moves can be made until there has been some time for discussion. Deb (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Well sorry to keep banging on about it but the crown of England disappeared in 1707. The crowns of Denmark and Sweden both became political entities about the same time as England but unlike England continue to produce kings and queens.

In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales.

I find that hard to swallow, and so it seems did Starkey in 2004 when he wrote:

Scotland, on the other hand, and to a lesser extent Wales, having kept their cultural nationalism going, have reclaimed powerful elements of their political identity and have started to develop absolutely standard European nationalisms, like those of France or Spain. All of which leaves England looking very odd: the country that dare not speak its name.

Bill Reid | Talk 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep the British & English monarch lists seperate. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Starkey's TV series was written for public appeal. It is not a scholarly piece. We cannot verify sources it uses as if it were an academic work.--Gazzster (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Watched Starkey's 'Monarchy' last night, about the Hanovers. He faild to mention Frederick, Prince of Wales. Oh well, Poor Fred. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I watched the one about Charles II last night (we're behind in Australia). Didn't even mention his persecution of the republican leaders. He manipulated the law to do it. But he did talk about his absolutist tendencies.--Gazzster (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English officers of state continuing as British ones after 1707

The following are examples of English offices/officers whose jurisdictions were England before 1 May 1707, and Great Britain thereafter:

  • Henry Boyle, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1701-1708 (office created 1316).
  • Charles Spencer, Southern Secretary 1706-1710 (office created 1660, renamed Home Secretary 1782).
  • Robert Harley, Northern Secretary 1704-1708 (office created 1660, renamed Foreign Secretary 1782).
  • William Cowper, Lord Chancellor (acting) 1705-1708 (office created 1068).
  • Thomas Herbet, Lord President of the Council 1702-1708 (office created 1530).
  • John Holles, Lord Privy Seal 1705-1711 (office created 1307).
  • John Churchill, Master-General of Ordnance 1702-1712 (office created 1544).
  • Thomas Grey, President of the Board of Trade 1705-1711 (office created 1672).
  • Sidney Godolphin, First Lord of the Treasury 1702-1710 (office created 1126 as Lord High Treasurer, and effectively became that of Prime Minister 1721).

There are many, many other examples, and I have only listed the really important offices (and that still exist today). In all cases these were English offices that extended their jurisdiction to the whole of Britain in 1707. There is not a single example of an English officer vacating his post in 1707, or the post itself being abolished. Conversely, it goes without saying that no Scottish governmental office, or officer, saw his jurisdiction expand to include the whole of Britain. Indeed most found themselves pensioned off (i.e. bribed). TharkunColl (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean to demonstrate, Tharky? That the Kingdom of England continued after 1707?--Gazzster (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I originally compiled that list to show that the English kingdom became the British kingdom. There is a continuity of statehood from England to Great Britain that was simply not the case for Scotland. The apparatus of the Scotish state was dismantled, whereas the apparatus of the English state expanded to encompass Great Britain. TharkunColl (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree.--Gazzster (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I compiled it as part of the debate over List of English monarchs. I, and others, wanted that list to continue to the present (and for the page to be retitled "List of English and British monarchs") because that is how the information is presented in pretty much every single reference source and because it acknowledges the essential continuity of the state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
State offices? Yes. Monarchies? No. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's worth another try.--Gazzster (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. I hope it doesn't get politicised again. TharkunColl (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before Tharky. If you can get a consensus for such a 'merger', I won't dispute it. I don't own those two articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly think it needs debating again. TharkunColl (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge monarch lists

It's been suggested here, that this article & List of English monarchs be merged as List of English and British monarchs. That wouldn't be a good idea, as it would create IMHO, the inaccurate idea that the English monarchy became the British monarchy, rather then becoming extinct like the Scottish (and later) Irish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's the whole point of course, because the English monarchy and state did not become extinct - they indeed became the British monarchy and state. There is an essential continuity that is undeniable, and the splitting of the lists obscures this fact. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this one. The continuity is undeniable. 1707 was basically about a change of name and getting rid of a potential threat to England.--Gazzster (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet, the continuity of the Scottish monarchy is also undeniable; that's what happens when two lines merge into one. It's useless to claim the Scottish monarchy died out while the English one continued and took Scotland over. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
With regard to your re-insertion of the fact tag, G2 - firstly the formatting seems a bit off - but more importantly can you name any Scottish office of state the jurisdiction of which expanded to include the whole of Great Britain in 1707? That was the import of the statement - English governmental departments, i.e. all the things that make up a state, expanded their jurisdiction to the whole of Great Britain in 1707. No Scottish ones did. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a strange way to word your question. It isn't a matter of any Scottish office expanding to include all of the United Kingdom, it's about English offices doing so. There's a slew of Scottish offices of state that were not abolished or superceeded by English offices after the Act of Union. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It is about English offices expanding to include Great Britain, because that's exactly what they did - offices make up a state, therefore the English state expanded to include Great Britain. Governmental Scottish offices were simply abolished, as your link explains. Some ceremonial ones survived - ones without power, which were in any case confined to Scotland and did not expand to Great Britain. Can you not appreciate the difference? Do you believe the events of 1707 were a merger of equals, or a takeover by one state of another? TharkunColl (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's about whether or not every single English office expanded to kill every singlge Scottish office. The answer is, emphatically: no. --G2bambino (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't about that. It's about the English offices expanding their jurisdiction to Scotland, which they did. The reverse is emphatically not the case. TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is, as what I said is exactly what you're trying to imply. Some English offices may have expanded to take in the entire United Kingdom. But, so what? None of it affirms that the English monarchy occupied some void left in Scotland when the Scottish monarchy inexplicably just... died. It was a merger of crowns into a personal union; pure and simple. --G2bambino (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Wikipedia: WikiProject United Kingdom of this current discussion & invited all opinons. PS - If you guys want to notify other related WikiProjects (concerning the discussion), please do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: My apologies to all - The English, Scottish & Irish monarchies didn't become extinct, rather they merged to become the British/UK monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the problem here is that it is difficult to find a reliable source that states it plainly one way or another. The reason for this is (I would contend) that the powers that be wished to make the exact legal status somewhat unclear, so that each person could form a differeny view as suited their slant on the matter. Nothing has changed in 300 years of union.
It is noticable that there are two distinct views expressed;
  1. Scotland was subsumed by England and the enlarged state took the name "Britain"
  2. Scotland and England both cease to exist, and came together as parts of a new entity called "Britain"
Clearly, the second version plays better north of the border, and the first south of the border!
It is interesting that the third logical view (England subsumed by Scotland) doesn't emerge. As such, the range of views to be reconciled does not encompass the whole spectrum. Merely the half from equal partners to dominant England.
With such a dearth of hard evidence, it is near impossible to avoid WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, however, in cases where an answer is needed and no reliable source can give one, such breaches must occur. It is my contention that the Kingdom of Britain ought to be regarded as a restyled and expanded Kingdom of England. Not from any nationalist passion (I really don't care that much!), but from putting together the evidence;
  • Earlier mergers The earlier creation of the Kingdom of Scotland out of the Kingdom of the Picts, and the Kingdom of England out of the Kingdom of Wessex. In each case a dominant kingdom absorbed others, and adopted a new wider title. Yet the succession is accepted.
  • Continuity The Acts of Union run to a common theme, namely that whatever happens now in England is the way of things in Britain. There are certain savings to retain some Scottish institutions within Scotland, but in general, England continues to be governed as before, and Scotland falls in line.
  • Succession The Acts specifically adopt the English succession to the throne.
  • Great Seal The Acts specify that there shall be a new Great Seal of Britain, but that the Great Seal of England shall be the Great seal of Britain pro tem. They further specify that there shall continue to be a Great Seal of Scotland to seal purely Scottish documents, but contain no such provision for a continuing Great Seal of England.
It is this last point which provides the subtle proof that Britain is a continuation of England. Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A balanced comment and well put.--Gazzster (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone is being rather selective about their history! Was it, or was it not James VI of Scots who attempted the first union of Scotland and England? And was it not Queen Anne, of the Royal House of Stewart who merged the kingdoms in the Acts of Union in 1707 to make a kingdom of Great Britain? And do not the current monarchs only hold their position on account of them being the closest non-catholic relatives to the House of Stewart? The current royal family even considered adopting Stuart as a royal house in 1917! --Camaeron (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think someone is being rather ignorant about their history. The reason for the union of 1707 was to make sure the Scots complied with the English decision to exclude the Stuarts and accept the Hanoverian succession. If you believe the Stuarts were behind it then you have been told a version of history that is almost the exact opposite of what happened. And so what if the Hanoverians are descended from the Stuarts? The Stuarts only had a claim to the English throne on account of them being descended from the Tudors. And the decision of 1917 notably did not choose Stuart as the new royal name. TharkunColl (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to inform, not to offend. Currently, it's 7-2 against a merger. Just curious, how long shall we keep this going? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it will happen - too many people with political axes to grind. Might as well close the vote now if you want. TharkunColl (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What does everyone else think? Shall we close? (PS: How do we close it?). GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Leave it for a while. A requested move would run at least a week, often more as backlogs there are common. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, a week is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course the house of Tudor was completely English! Theres just the slight problem of them being ever so slightly WELSH! --Camaeron (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance strikes again. Elizabeth I, a Tudor, had an English mother and a father who had... an English mother. Oh, and his father too, etc. So yes, I agree with you. The Tudors really were ever so slightly Welsh. Please go and read the concrete elephant speech by Elizabeth I, and you'll see which country she identified with. TharkunColl (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course she identifies with England. She had lived here all her life after all. However fact remains that Tudor is a welsh royal house. BTW Why isnt there a wikipedia page on noble dynasties? Hasnt anyone here heard of noble houses? There is a large page on royal houses! --Camaeron (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update folks, it's currently 9-2 against a merger. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been (over) a week now. There's obviously no consensus to merge. Can somebody close this thing (put it in a colored box)? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Make that 10-2 against a merger. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody removed the template... I suppose I ought to be instead of chatting here...just wanted to make sure everyone's in agreement really--Camaeron (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yay or Nay (to merger of lists)

Comment Can we please try and get some people who aren't Scottish voting here please? It's precisely this politicisation of the article that has caused the present distortion in the first place. TharkunColl (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read official Wikipedia policy WP:NPA. In particular please note:

"... some types of comments are never acceptable: ...political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

The nationality or ethnicity, or political preferences, of your fellow Wikipedia editors is utterly irrelevant.
I would strongly argue that it is in fact you who is trying desperately to politicise this and related articles.
Please also read official Wikipedia policies: WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not suggest that Scots should not be allowed to vote. I merely suggested it would be better, that is more balanced, if others did as well - or at least in greater numbers than they have so far. If anything, I was bemoaning English apathy - which I'm allowed to do since I am English. TharkunColl (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My vote is not because I'm Scottish (what does nationality have to do with merging these lists), it is to maintain an encyclopedia and not to promote fiction as fact. Bill Reid | Talk 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it's because Thark can't believe that nobody else here sees the world from his Anglo-centric point of view. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nay Complete rubbish see entry in the above section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's rather more that some people have an anti-English agenda which causes them to distort history for nationalistic reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not good to make assumptions, that editors have hidden agendas. In fact it's impossible to prove such assumptions on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just come across this discussion - of course I vote No as well. If anything, a more logical proposal would be to merge the list of British monorchs with the List of Scottish monarchs, though I would oppose that as well. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To even suggest that the proposal to merge the Scottish and British lists is "more logical" shows a complete disregard of history. The union of 1707 was brought about by the English so that they could get rid of the Stuarts - not only from England but from Scotland as well. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, to get rid of the Catholic Stuarts. I don't think anyone denies that the union was motivated by the paranoia of England. And I don't think anyone could seriously deny the 'union' was in effect an English takeover. Legally it was a union of crowns. Effectively it was a takeover (Btw, my ancestors are Scottish and I believe Scotland was unjustly conquered). --Gazzster (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blatantly obvious no - at the first I thought the proposal was just a joke or the tag was added by mistake. The two are not the same thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question for Barrybob

Since you have just voted without leaving a comment, I would like to ask your reason. Your user page states that you support Scottish independence. From what? If the events of 1707 were a merger of equals, why do so many Scots feel hard done by? TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to answer for him, but its probably the dominance of English culture and politics within the culture of the United Kingdom. The English account for 83% of the British population remember. The two kingdoms were also embattled for centuries prior to the union. I don't think Braveheart helped either! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The events in 1707 where not a merger of equals the English wanted protection from a potential French invasion from the north and Scottish establishment needed English gold to pay off the darien disaster, saying that it was not the simple renaming of the English state as you like to put it Scotland retained it own legal system ect. Now with regards to independance like the vast majority of the Scottish population I say I am Scottish not British my national identity is Scottish I belive Scotland would be better running all of its own affairs. PS braveheart didn't really have any affect on my views. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Not forgetting the union was helped along because of the Union of Crowns and the Protestant Reformation of course ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
With due respect to Mel Gibson? The movie Braveheart has alot of inaccuracies in it. Edward III, illegitimate son of William Wallace? Not unless they could preserve sperm in the 1300's. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Jz and Barry have made comments to the effect that they agree with the proposition that the union was English driven and English dominated. They should, in all logic, therefore agree with the proposed merger. And yet they vote against it. Can we really say that politics has not been a factor here? TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of my comments above (i.e. Braveheart) were intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but I guess it's hard to tell from text alone. I oppose the merger because I happen to believe this would be the wrong way forwards for the list. Barry and I have opposing perspectives on several issues (I'm British not Scottish like the majority :)!) but I think we can both put politics aside and see this proposal is not a merger that lists the monarchs of England, Scotland and Britain effectively. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In 1620 the Kingdom of France merged with the Kingdom of Navarre. Yet we do not break the list of French monarchs there. Why not? TharkunColl (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine it is due to a consensus between editors. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And that is precisely the trouble. A group of Scottish editors always strike down any suggestion of this nature. And yet they also appear to be Scottish nationalists. You can't have it both ways. Either the English took over Scotland and the Scots want independence, or not. Why must these issues always be politicised? Why must every opportunity be taken to denigrate the English, even if it means self-contradiction? TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The supporters of union in 1707 are long dead in 2008. The supporters of independence in 2008 weren't born in 1707. We can go further. It is not necessary that someone who supports independence now should believe that union then was undesirable. The question here is not one of logic, or even of fact, but simply one of presentation. Is it necessary or desirable to duplicate a list across multiple articles? It is not necessary, as we can see, because it is not duplicated now. Whether it is desirable to do so is a matter of judgement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Navarre merged into the french state the same did not happen with Scotland, and since when has Jza84 been a Scottish nationalist ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. If the hat fits, and all that. And, given everything I've said above about government departments, in what way were the events of 1707 not a takover of Scotland by England? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article used to be a list of all the monarchs and monarchies associated with Britain back to Roman times. It was not originally intended to be a list of monarchs who ruled the UK. A decision was taken a few years ago to rename it as List of monarchs in the British Isles, so this article became a redirect. The redirect was then replaced by this "Monarchs of the UK" text. In my opinion the best plan would be to move this text to Monarchs of the UK, or something similar, and move the original article back to this title. There would then be no need for a merger of anything. Since all British monarchs would be included, whatever state they might happen to have ruled. Also in its favour, the original article gave a much clearer picture of the evolution of the various monarchies to the present one via its "timeline" layout. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The best approach would be to rename this article List of monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which is what it is, and to take List of monarchs in the British Isles out and shoot it, or split it into two, a Lists of monarchs in Britain and Ireland and a Synchronism of English and Scottish monarchs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You know something, people? If these articles get merged, we'll have to merge all articles relating to United Kingdom & England. In fact, for starters? we'd have to merge United Kingdom & England. Basically these articles are all related & interlocked with each other. You merge here? you merge there. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think that is the case at all. This is a step too far in extrapolating to a conclusion. It is sensible to separate out narrative articles, whilst lists can be usefully combined. Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, though, they can't.
More to the point: I think what GoodDay meant to do, in a slightly facetious way (though nothing wrong with that), was highlight the motive that may lie behind the desire to merge the lists; i.e. it stems from a particular personal view that the state of Scotland ceased to exist and the entire island of Great Britain became England, only named the United Kingdom so as not to tip off the obviously ignorant Scots. If the lists were merged it would become easier to come to such a conclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not that the Scots were "ignorant" (as you state in your straw man argument), rather that they needed to be given something to save face. This the English were prepared to give them. Both sides knew what was really happening - hence the famous story about the song "Why am I so sad on my wedding night" being rung out in Edinburgh on the day the small group of selected Scottish MPs took their seats at Westminster (they didn't even bother holding a new general election, by the way, for the new "state" - and the English triennial act kicked in on schedule). TharkunColl (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I alwasy come back to the fact, the UK Parliament has MPs from Scotland & England (aswell as Wales & Northern Ireland). If they only had MPs from England, you might've convinced me Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A state will have representatives from all its areas. They meet at Westminster, which has been the seat of the parliament (and its predecessors) of this state since the reign of Edward the Confessor. No English person regards themselves as living in a different state from that of the middle ages - no matter how many lies and half-truths Wikipedia promotes. TharkunColl (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is actually an enlarged Kingdom of England in disguise. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
HELP does anybody know how to close this Merge request? Their was 'no consensus' to merge. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Editors of this rather eyebrowraising article may benefit from reading WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, which are subsections of official Wikipedia policy WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

In other words: please do not make things up as you go along. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regnal numbering

Why has someone put a fact tag on the statement that regnal numbering of monarchs follows on from England? Don't they think that readers might be a little surprised at reading the list and coming to a William "IV" or Edwards "VII" and "VIII", or even Elizabeth "II"? We must not assume they know the background and so must explain what is at first sight nonsensical (nonsensical, that is, if we really are talking about different states). TharkunColl (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't bothered to read that piece of text before but its wrong. It was agreed at the accession of Elizabeth II to adopt in future whatever numeral in the English or Scottish line was the higher. So if a monarch called David came to the throne then he would be called David III. Also propose that the opening piece England and Scotland entered into legislative and governmental union on 1 May 1707 be replaced by England and Scotland entered into political union on 1 May 1707, yes? Bill Reid | Talk 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified it, and linked to the more detailed article. The 1953 convention was convenient in that whilst it was new, it actually fitted to the previous practice (no monarch who would have borne a higher number from Scots precedence has reigned since the union. Mayalld (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's fair, though I've removed a bit of crystal ball gazing. TharkunColl (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I got a little carried away with that! I thought an example would be useful, and my first thought was of a potential James VIII, but noticed that there are a number of previously exclusively Scots names in the top 20 Mayalld (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And in any case, there is no reason to assume he will take his given name as his regnal name. Edward VIII's given name, ironically enough, was David, for example. TharkunColl (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Edward VIII's given (first) name was Edward, (see his article). GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, and I've reduced it to a more abstract statement. Whilst is is unlikelt that James Windsor will ever reign, it is entirely believable that some future monarch would be King James for example Mayalld (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't believe the British monarchy will ever choose a name from the Scottish succession that will give them a higher number than the English one. That, of course, is just my opinion. TharkunColl (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That may well be true. On the other hand, having James VIII (or even a prospective James VIII) would be an astute move for the Windsors. As Scottish Nationalism gains ground, and the SNP campaigns for independence, full separation of the parliaments (whilst a distant prospect) looms on the horizons. Were that to happen, the position of Scotland would likely be the same of the position of the dominions, namely the division of the crown into a separate English and Scottish Crown in personal union, and the possibility of the Scots declaring a republic. By choosing a Scottish name for a future heir, they would improve their chances of retaining their hold. Mayalld (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I suspect the Scots would see it for what it was. That brings up another point though. Would an independent Scotland with the British monarch with its head of state re-introduce its own numbering, or follow British numbering like the dominions? TharkunColl (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Intriguing possibilty. I wonder if London would ever allow Scottish independence? As before 1707, England might be wary of an independent neighbour that could challenge its interests. In these times I doubt dominion status would be treated as a serious option. More likely Scotland will go republic.--Gazzster (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Even Margaret Thatcher stated that if a majority of Scots want independence they can have it, and that is no doubt the official British stance. Thing is though, say a referendum was held and they voted for independence, would there be any provision for changing their minds later when they discover just how expensive it is running a country with such a small population base? They have been subsidised by England ever since the union and probably long before. TharkunColl (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose Scotland and England would negotiate an economic treaty. And they would probably join the Eu pretty smartly.--Gazzster (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Another point is this - any independent Scotland should also take Northern Ireland, since the Protestant majority there are largely of Scottish descent. A glance at a map will show the logic of this. Why should England be lumbered with it? TharkunColl (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but why should Scotland be lumbered with it? England created the problem of NI. It should fix it.--Gazzster (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Scotland should take it because the Protestants there are of Scottish descent, and identify with Scotland. I'm not really sure its true to say that England created the problem of NI. I think that was Germany in WW1 who subsidised Irish rebels. Prior to the war a federal solution for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales had been proposed, but the outbreak of war saw it shelved and the Germans then fomented Irish rebellion. TharkunColl (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its not all that clear cut, is it? I think we better leave NI alone and stick to the Land of the Thistle.--Gazzster (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Truly this is interesting, but aren't we getting away from the topic? article merging? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe Mayalid's last post puts the matter in perspective.--Gazzster (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll find out when a 'Scottish name' comes to the British Throne. Interesting discussion though. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
to GoodDay; Whilst this page is for discussing a possible merger, it is also for discussing any other matters pertaining to the page, and the extent to which we delve into regnal numbering on the page is very pertinent to this talk page. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why discuss a possible future event? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We may have digressed a little. A pardonable offence. --Gazzster (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I was just suggesting things were getting off track. I've no authority to end it. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, and thanks for the friendly response on my talk. My comment above may have seemed a little terse, although it wasn't intended that way. I actually think this little diversion has been useful. It has resulted in (IMHO) improvements to the article refined by consensus, when the whole thing was in danger of becoming bogged down in an endless argument between two camps. Perhaps we should keep in mind that whichever side "wins" in the long run, it doesn't matter half as much as getting good solid content into whichever articles we have on this subject.
I happen to think that the "correct" way to do it is to regard GB as a continuation of the English state, but if the consensus runs against me on this, then I accept it, and move on to improve the article(s). Mayalld (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Just to extend the above a little more (sorry)... it was the House of Stuart that wanted a unitary Kingdom of Great Britain. James VI/I styled himself King of Great Britain. My point? I wonder how the Royal Family feel about Scottish nationalism today and if they'd even step in with their Royal Prerogative on the issue (as a block?). Perhaps there's something about this somewhere? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Stuart proposal was rejected. The actual union came about when the English parliament decided to exclude the Stuarts from the succession, and in order to get the Scots to agree annexed them. The entire 17th century can be seen as a battle between the English and the Stuart monarchy, which they hated. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The English did not want the situation where the Scots had a separate monarch with potential hostile intentions, so the Kingdom of England bullied and bought the Scottish Kingdom it was never annexed. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So you admit, at least, that the union was English driven and that the Scots were effectively forced into it? So why vote against my proposal above? TharkunColl (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Cromwell effectively annexed Scotland for a short time I believe (I never was much of a republican). Also, I understood that elected Scotsmen of worth and intelligence negotiated a treaty of peace and economic benefit for Scotland in 1707. Good for them, it brought alot of wealth and prosperity. I dread to think what would've happened if they'd gone down the Auld Alliance route. I jest of course. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to Jza regarding Royal Family and Scot Nats. I believe that Alex Salmond has stated on several occasions that the Scot Nats are not a republican party and that if Scotland ever achieves independence, it will still have the monarch of the day as its head of state. I understand that Salmond and Prince Charles are quite chummy:0) Bill Reid | Talk 09:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Will they set up a Governor General (or equivalent) like in the dominions, or will they have direct monarchical involvement as currently the case for the UK, with the monarch flying back and forth between London and Edinburgh, I wonder? When James moved to England in 1603, did he appoint a regent or other representative to govern Scotland in his absence? I assume he must have. TharkunColl (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know, but assume that Scotland would be a Commonwealth Realm - probably along the lines of the Canadian model. As for James, he ruled directly through his Edinburgh privy council, sending his instructions by letter. The Scottish ruling classes came to him rather than the other way round but because there was so many taking the high road to London, the English complained and James had to ban them and then only those with his passport were allowed back! Bill Reid | Talk 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Answer to TharkunColl Because it was a brand new kingdom being created, some of the Scottish offices remained there was no new Lord President of the Court of Session appointed does this mean the Scottish state still existed ? as for the Queens role in Scotland I very much doubt there would be governor general appointed seeing as it would be recreation of the Kingdom of Scotland and given the ammount of time she already spends here it would just be silly. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Some Scottish offices of state continued, certainly - but the point I was making was that English offices were expanding to include Scotland, whereas no Scottish offices that survived had their jurisdictions expanded to include England. Did the Scottish state survive? Some of it did, especially, for example, those parts of it connected with the judiciary. But those parts that survived became part of a regional authority. In marked contrast, every single aspect of the English state survived, and saw its jurisdiction expand to include Scotland. Is it not obvious that there is quite a big difference? TharkunColl (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a scary argument if you use it in a modern context replacing Scotland with the UK and England with the EU... -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither an English or Scottish state survived that is exactly the point. IMHO some of the above comments are bordering on anti-scottish. Some of the comments seem to suggest Scotland is in some way inferior to England. Why do people always want to compare the two? Britain is a great nation. England has achieved a lot but so has Scotland, especially considering their tiny population! --Camaeron (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. The facts of the Union clearly demonstrate that the Scottish State ceased to exist, being merged into a renamed English State. Clearly, however, that view of things (no matter how well sourced) doesn't sit well with Scots who see it as a slur on their nation. We are faced with a conundrum. Do we go with what the facts, on dispassionate evaluation, tell us about the matter, or do we bow to the pressure as claims of anti-Scottish bias are made? I don't favour trying to rewrite history to suit a particular POV. It isn't anti-Scottish or suggesting that Scotland is inferior. It is simply dealing with the fact that in 1707 there was an unequal union in which the English State evolved into the British State.
This question will be resolved by looking at where the facts lead us. It will never be solved by playing the "anti-Scottish" card. Mayalld (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain (which later evolved to become the United Kingdom). Those are the facts. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And the facts also clearly show that it was the English state that expanded to subsume the Scottish. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Both facts are true: the two states merged and the English state gobbled up the Scottish. --Gazzster (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. But again, if a consensus for merge is reached, I won't revert it. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I accept your facts above, but I don't believe that they are all the facts, and using only some of the facts can lead to an incorrect conclusion. I am encouraged to see that there is at least a consensus that whichever way the eventual consensus goes, we should all respect it. Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the above is true yet bits are pure rubbish. Sure lots was carried on from the English monarchy. England is 10 times the size of Scotland. Find me a credible source that England "annexed" Scotland somehow and I won't revert either! --Camaeron (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

England is indeed 10 times the size of Scotland (in population). It also has virtually all of the good agricultural land in Britain, leaving Scotland and Wales with the mostly mountainous bits. These are just two of the reasons why England is a far more powerful country than Scotland. In the 17th century, even before the growth of the British Empire, England was one of the great powers of Europe, whereas Scotland was tiny, remote, and weak. These are simple facts - we are not here to judge or to explain them away. This is the reason why England was able to push through the union on its own terms and control it thereafter. This is undeniable. Unfair perhaps, but that's just the way it is. TharkunColl (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced, that the United Kingdom is actually an enlarged Kingdom of England renamed the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again GD comes to my rescue! Are you sure you dont want me to nominate you for adminship? You would make it I know you would! --Camaeron (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let's look at it another way. Do you think that England, with 83% of the UK population, effectively controls it? TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ontario has the largest population in Canada & the Canadian capital is in Ontatio. Does that mean Ontario controls the rest of Canada? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it have more than 80%, or even more than 50% of the population of Canada? England is to the UK what Russia was to the USSR, or Prussia was to Germany. TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a momment. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991, it broke up into 15 independant countries; it was not renamed Russia. Prussia ceased to exist in 1918, while Germany (after a few changes over the decades) still exist. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
When the USSR still existed, Russia took up the bulk of its population and teritory. Same for Prussia in Germany from 1871 to 1945. Same with England in the UK today. This does not apply to Ontario in Canada. TharkunColl (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know where the current Prime Minister of the UK is from dont you? It begins with S! --Camaeron (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My god, I was wondering when someone was going to mention that! It shows the tolerance of the English more than anything. We've also had Welsh, Irish, and Canadian PMs. TharkunColl (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish, and Canadian? --Camaeron (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Duke of Wellington was Irish, and Andrew Bonar Law was Canadian. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people would still class them as British! --Camaeron (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And they'd be correct to. Both the Irish and Canadians were British at that time. TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna let you guys work this out. Myself & Tharky may never agree over the 1707 Union Act, but we've agreed to disagree on that issue, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Camaeron, if I were you I'd back off and let ThurkanCall continue to make an absolute fool of himself with his silly, mostly nonsensical reposts. His deliberate wind-ups are becoming tiresome and mostly contain stuff that border on crap. Bill Reid | Talk 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of what I wrote is derived from my knowledge as a historian, especially of English history. But you are perfectly correct - England does indeed border on crap. TharkunColl (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you certainly are an accomplished historian and I always respect your views and opinions, even if we dont always see eye to eye, but that very impolite and totally uncalled for! --Camaeron (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's what is known as a "joke", actually. TharkunColl (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, you have to be careful with humourist comments in 'public' discussons such as these. They can backfire sometimes. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a lurker giving another view, I took Thark's comment as the witticism it was, and was more shocked by the edit "Camaeron, if I were you I'd back off and let ThurkanCall continue to make an absolute fool of himself with his silly, mostly nonsensical reposts. His deliberate wind-ups are becoming tiresome and mostly contain stuff that border on crap." by Bill Reid. It is ot the civilest comment evar.:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split & Rename

Perhaps we should split this article into List of monarchs of Great Britain (i.e. Anne to George III) and List of monarchs of the United Kingdom (George III to Elizabeth II). Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be unnecessarily confusing - we need to keep the list on one page as much as possible. Ireland, unlike Scotland, was not a sovereign state. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Howabout renaming it List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom? or is that too cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be an option, but is there really any need? We already have English, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Australian and probably quite a lot of others as well. TharkunColl (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If this title was changed? as a consistancy buff, I would end up proposing those other articles also be moved to List of Monarchs of XX. Something that the article List of Scottish monarchs would likely reject (again). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the name as it is...British covers both GB and UK. Even Canada has had territory changes since being part of the monarchy...as reflected on the page. --Camaeron (t/c) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)